John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government highly criticized Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan’s political ideology and view of human nature. The political philosophies of both John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, although similar in some ways are equally opposite. This paper will explore contrasting beliefs of both philosophers and critique John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government from a Hobbesian point of view.
It is important to note that Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were not born in the same time period. Due to this, their experiences were heavily influenced by their environment and is a reason why they never aligned which each other accurately. Hobbes view of human nature was shaped by the English civil war which caused him to believe that the life …show more content…
For Hobbes, the purpose of the contract is keep the commonwealth safe and prevent them from turning back to a state of violence otherwise known as the state of nature. There is no ‘moral code’ in the state of nature so men because they are equal by nature may kill one another as the please (Hobbes, 70). On the other hand, Hobbes is aware that even though man is self-seeking, he also has reason and a desire to live. The will to live will lead them to creating a social contract and establish a common wealth. In contrast, Locke does not see the state of nature as chaotic but views it as a family structure; everyone helps one another. Even though this is so, he believes that the nature’s ‘moral code’ can be broken causing violence against an individual to erupt in …show more content…
(Locke, 222). Locke further believes that is a fundamental right for the commonwealth to hold a revolution against the governance to restore (Locke, 225). Hobbes would see otherwise because there are no rights for the commonwealth, once they have become a part of the commonwealth. Their rights were given up to the sovereign while he keeps his rights in the state of nature since he is not bound by the covenant. This is justified in the passage, “There can be no breach of the Covenant on the part of the Sovereign and consequently, none of his subjects… can be freed from his Subjection” (97). The commonwealth was decided because a large group of individuals came together and decided to form one, ensuring that one of them would lead. Due to this belief, they undoubtedly gave up their rights and have sacrificed them to the sovereign to ensure safety, security, etc.
In conclusion, the two political philosophers, Hobbes and Locke, due to different time periods view man’s state of nature, establishment of the common wealth, property, and the overthrowing the government differently. While Locke had many great points considering the goodness of humankind, this had been proven false any times with not only people but rulers in history. All man is not good and according to Hobbes, must be forced into a covenant to preserve
It is important to note that Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were not born in the same time period. Due to this, their experiences were heavily influenced by their environment and is a reason why they never aligned which each other accurately. Hobbes view of human nature was shaped by the English civil war which caused him to believe that the life …show more content…
For Hobbes, the purpose of the contract is keep the commonwealth safe and prevent them from turning back to a state of violence otherwise known as the state of nature. There is no ‘moral code’ in the state of nature so men because they are equal by nature may kill one another as the please (Hobbes, 70). On the other hand, Hobbes is aware that even though man is self-seeking, he also has reason and a desire to live. The will to live will lead them to creating a social contract and establish a common wealth. In contrast, Locke does not see the state of nature as chaotic but views it as a family structure; everyone helps one another. Even though this is so, he believes that the nature’s ‘moral code’ can be broken causing violence against an individual to erupt in …show more content…
(Locke, 222). Locke further believes that is a fundamental right for the commonwealth to hold a revolution against the governance to restore (Locke, 225). Hobbes would see otherwise because there are no rights for the commonwealth, once they have become a part of the commonwealth. Their rights were given up to the sovereign while he keeps his rights in the state of nature since he is not bound by the covenant. This is justified in the passage, “There can be no breach of the Covenant on the part of the Sovereign and consequently, none of his subjects… can be freed from his Subjection” (97). The commonwealth was decided because a large group of individuals came together and decided to form one, ensuring that one of them would lead. Due to this belief, they undoubtedly gave up their rights and have sacrificed them to the sovereign to ensure safety, security, etc.
In conclusion, the two political philosophers, Hobbes and Locke, due to different time periods view man’s state of nature, establishment of the common wealth, property, and the overthrowing the government differently. While Locke had many great points considering the goodness of humankind, this had been proven false any times with not only people but rulers in history. All man is not good and according to Hobbes, must be forced into a covenant to preserve